Insulin production from fructose intake

Our beloved fruitarians claims that fructose intake from fruits doesn't raise insulin levels significantly since hardly any insulin is required to metabolize fructose in the body. What do you guys make of this?

This is true. But it doesn't mean that uninhibited consumption of fructose comes without consequence. Fructose is able to diffuse into the cell by simpler means than glucose which makes it an ideal fuel for diabetics, who are unable to utilize glucose. But this ease of entrance into the cell makes it particularly easy to convert fructose into fat, usually in the liver. In excess, these fatty byproducts can lead to insulin resistance because of the stressful oxidative state they create within the cell.

Sticking to fruit usually prevents this from happening as there are other factors in fruit that effect how the sugar gets used. The problem of fatty liver and high fructose consumption usually comes when the diet is low in protein and certain vitamins, and when the fructose is gotten by eating tons of high fructose corn syrup. Sweetened drinks like soda are where the problem is (that said, I have these on cheat days regularly).

I personally think fruits are one of the ideal human foods. I don't think anybody should worry about getting fructose via fruit. Soda and sweetened, processed foods are where the problem is if consumed in excess. And in my opinion having these on occaision is not a problem, specifically if you take certain supplements with them and supplement your diet with plenty of vitamin E.

As a complete baseline, I think that fruit and animal meat (muscle and organ) are probably the best and most compatible foods human beings can eat. Consider also that the other macronutrients effect sugar metabolism. In particular, if the muscles have been primed with exercise, consuming simple sugars like fructose or sucrose is anabolic and fat burning when taken with proteins (especially branched chain amino acids: leucine, isoleucine, valine). A diet high enough in protein will virtually eliminate any of the negative aspects of fructose on the liver.

Thanks for the reply!

anthonyspencer54 wrote:In excess, these fatty byproducts can lead to insulin resistance because of the stressful oxidative state they create within the cell.

I guess that's why the fruit juicing hype is something to stay away from, at least these suger-laden, fiber-free drinks? Talk about processed!

anthonyspencer54 wrote:The problem of fatty liver and high fructose consumption usually comes when the diet is low in protein and certain vitamins, and when the fructose is gotten by eating tons of high fructose corn syrup.

A fruitarian diet can be high in protein if the right sources are picked. Would you say that vegetarian protein is inferior to animal protein?

If I remember correctly, CS stated a while ago that HFCS isn't that much of a problem since the absorption in the body is really low.

anthonyspencer54 wrote:I think that fruit and animal meat (muscle and organ) are probably the best and most compatible foods human beings can eat.

I guess you've got a point there, however, these two food groups have so very different transit-times in the body so I guess they should not be combined?

anthonyspencer54 wrote:A diet high enough in protein will virtually eliminate any of the negative aspects of fructose on the liver.

And what kind of protein intake do we guess that serious vegans and fruitarians adheres to?

Misirlou wrote:Thanks for the reply!

anthonyspencer54 wrote:In excess, these fatty byproducts can lead to insulin resistance because of the stressful oxidative state they create within the cell.

I guess that's why the fruit juicing hype is something to stay away from, at least these suger-laden, fiber-free drinks? Talk about processed!

anthonyspencer54 wrote:The problem of fatty liver and high fructose consumption usually comes when the diet is low in protein and certain vitamins, and when the fructose is gotten by eating tons of high fructose corn syrup.

A fruitarian diet can be high in protein if the right sources are picked. Would you say that vegetarian protein is inferior to animal protein?

If I remember correctly, CS stated a while ago that HFCS isn't that much of a problem since the absorption in the body is really low.

anthonyspencer54 wrote:I think that fruit and animal meat (muscle and organ) are probably the best and most compatible foods human beings can eat.

I guess you've got a point there, however, these two food groups have so very different transit-times in the body so I guess they should not be combined?

anthonyspencer54 wrote:A diet high enough in protein will virtually eliminate any of the negative aspects of fructose on the liver.

And what kind of protein intake do we guess that serious vegans and fruitarians adheres to?

I believe you are right about the fruit juice. Juicing your own fruits at home is different than buying some of the commercial products. Don't think you can go wrong going right to the source, but yes I'd avoid some of the really sugary stuff at the supermarket.

I absolutely feel vegetarian protein is inferior to animal protein, the main reason being an issue of bioavailability. The human body simply assimilates animal protein more easily than that from plants. For me, this is a sure sign of food compatibility and a signal as to how it jibes with our digestive systems.

I agree with CS on the HFCS issue. But I believe he uses it the same way I tend to, just on occasion. I have a weak spot for soda (I know there are so many reasons it is awful) but I allow myself one or two, only once per week on cheat days. in this context, HFCS is not a problem. Its a problem when people are getting it in high amounts (3-4 sodas daily along with processed foods sweetened with it). Taken with the proper supplements (l-carnitine, B-vitamins, vitamin C, r-lipoic acid) you can mitigate the negative aspects of HFCS on those off-times you are getting it.

I'm not sure how different the transit times between meat and fruit really are or if this effects how we utilize these foods. Of course, eating a ton of fruit in one sitting (especially more fibrous kinds) might potentiate some of it getting into the lower intestine to be fermented. But the fiber content of most fruits tends to be pretty minimal and they are digested fairly quickly. I don't believe meat takes an incredible amount of time to digest either, probably longer than fruit by comparison, I'd imagine. Correct me if I'm wrong. I think proteins and carbohydrates should be combined. The sugars are needed by the cell for the signalling chain that leads to utilization of the protein. In any event, I've never found any fruit or meat in my stool, whereas I can't say the same for veggies. When my stool is looking proper, I know I'm eating correctly.

Lastly, I don't agree with a vegan or vegetarian diet to begin with. I don't think its an optimal human diet. When someone is doing it for a cause, either protesting poor treatment of animals or poor farming practices, I get that. But if someone is doing it simply for the sake of it being healthy, I recommend against it. A lot of the more zealous, popular vegan bloggers will talk about how you can get all of the necessary aminos from plant foods. While this is true, most fruits and veggies are not complete proteins in and of themselves. The ones that are generally contain other antinutrients and toxins that offset their positive attributes. Then the issue of bioavailability comes up, and even the highest BV plant proteins are usually absorbed at 50-60% the rate of animal proteins. So yes, you can get a full compliment of aminos from fruits and veggies, but keep in mind it will generally be less protein, and on top of that you'll absorb less of it. If your goal is only to get enough protein to sustain life, it should be simple (but I'd even supplement with a rice protein if I were going this route). If your goal is optimum protein intake, or anything to do with athletic performance or body recomp, its going to be difficult to get the necessary amounts from plants alone.

anthonyspencer54 wrote:Juicing your own fruits at home is different than buying some of the commercial products.

Yes it is, for sure, but even home made juice from organic fruits can probably be a "bad" daily routine if just the juice is extracted and then consumed, but I guess that if fibers etc are added, it's fine.

anthonyspencer54 wrote:I absolutely feel vegetarian protein is inferior to animal protein, the main reason being an issue of bioavailability.

Well, "they" don't agree with you on this one Two of the key arguments is that we don't need as much protein as we think and second, some of the most muscular creatures upon this earth mainly gets their protein from non-animal sources.
...then how come that my really old cat, who still is agile, lethal and fast, keeps his junk together on mostly semi-dead, RAW mouses? :-)

anthonyspencer54 wrote:I don't believe meat takes an incredible amount of time to digest either

Frutarians claim it takes about 2-3 times longer on average.

anthonyspencer54 wrote:The ones that are generally contain other antinutrients and toxins that offset their positive attributes.

Interesting! Can you elaborate on this topic?

anthonyspencer54 wrote: If your goal is optimum protein intake, or anything to do with athletic performance or body recomp, its going to be difficult to get the necessary amounts from plants alone.

Fruitarians wouldn't agree...but then again, if you eat extreme amounts of fruits and veggies, the daily need would probably be filled even for fruitarian athletes, but then when would they have time to exercise?

"They"...haha. You wouldn't happen to be amongst their ranks would you?

There is a major problem with these arguments which ecology can resolve. The false assumption is that our digestive systems and energy systems (which derive the energy from food) are the same as all of these other forms of life. Most of the animals that are able to thrive on all plant foods have evolved, via natural selection, to be particularly suited to extracting all of the nutrients out of those plants. More importantly than that, their bodies have different chemical pathways for converting the material into everything they need. Ruminants for example are specially adapted to extract everything they require from grass. Humans could not do this. We wouldn't survive on a diet of all grass because our bodies are not adapted to utilizing grass. This works pretty much across the board. Species that have evolved in environments to fill niches of eating primary producers have adapted to that lifestyle. Human beings are omnivorous, meaning we are capable of consuming both plant and animal. But the fact that we were once almost exclusively frugivores who later became scavengers suggests something about the survivability offered to us by animal foods. Is a combination of both plant and animal ideal? I think so, if you are concerned with what we are adapted to eating. Now again, I realize there are other concerns when it comes to diet. Some people feel we shouldn't harm animals. I get that. But there really aren't any good reasons to eat only plants for health reasons alone.

A lot of the vegans who make the "look how muscular cows are" argument are purposely neglecting food chains. Every niche will be filled. Plants take the suns energy and turn it into carbohydrate. Animals suited to eating plants are able to utilize that energy (primary consumers). Then animals that cannot get all of the required nutrition from plants consume those animals. The chains work perfectly when in balance. But my point is, we won't get the same result out of the same diet as a creature occupying a different level of the food chain. We can't get muscular from plants just because cows can. This is why it makes very little sense when people say "Well, we should go right to the source right? (meaning plants). Doesn't work that way or every creature on earth would have no reason to eat another animal, and probably wouldn't given that its relatively easier to find plant food than animal food in most habitats. If a lion could survive on a vegetarian diet, they'd probably opt for it.

That is interesting about the meat transit time. I had no idea.

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/vegetables.shtml

If you consider the plants that are complete proteins most are pretty well known for their antinutrient content: beans and legumes, spinach, grains like quinoa. I can't think of any more off the top of my head.

And when someone says "We need a lot less protein than we think", I'm a bit thrown off by this. Who decides what we need? If we assume a minimum of 10% of calories should be gotten from protein (or about 50g daily on a 2000 cal/day diet), then this would be quite easy to get from strictly plant sources. But certain conditions cause people to require more protein: chronic inflammation, low stomach acid, leaky gut, impaired digestion, infection, connective tissue disorders. Who is to say there aren't benefits to eating more protein than what is needed just for survival? That's like saying we only need so many grams of fat and carb to survive, and we shouldn't eat more than what keeps us alive. Are there benefits to eating more protein? I think there are. There's the thermogenic effect of protein. The amino acids are precursors to neurotransmitters and have an effect on our mood, metabolism, and hormone levels. There is the simple fact proteins offset other calories in the diet. It increases protein synthesis and increasing protein intake can help increase nitrogen retention and our ability to put on muscle. Repair of every structure in the body requires protein. Saying we should eat only the minimum requirement....well why? Why do the bare minimum of anything if going beyond that would be beneficial? Is there an upper limit? Of course I think there is. So to the people who say we need less than what we think we do: I'd say yeah well, we probably need less fat and carbs than we generally take in, but what rationale is there for us to do that? We probably could survive on less vitamins and minerals than are optimal, is that a reason to lower our intake?

Honestly, I'm just researching as for now. If I turn to the RAW side, I'll let you be the first one to know

But looking at the following creation, I will probably never go 100% raw :-)


Do you know anything about cancer and the vegetarian diet? Several sources claims vegetarians shows lower rates of cancer then meat-eaters, however, I'm sure this has been debunked several times before. Truth is a difficult nut to crack open.

Yes, you are definitely on to something about protein intake, I would also appreciate comments regarding this vid since we are on the subject:

I'll tell ya what. This guy is a salesman. And his success at selling his diet has to do with many factors. Probably one of the biggest biases we humans have to deal with when it comes to the nutrition/diet is that we tend to want to believe people who look the way we want to look. This guy is obviously in great shape, has a nice head of hair, good skin tone and complexion, and is just generally handsome in the face. The effect of this is that not only do we tend to like him more for his attractiveness, we tend to want to believe the things he says more. We want to look like that. Unfortunately, a good tan and a nice head of hair could be had on the complete opposite diet. There are people just like him selling the opposite kind of diet and doing it in the same fashion.

The fact is the confirmation bias is operating far too often when people try to interpret diet/nutrition data. My biggest qualm with his talk is that he is using false rhetoric to confuse people, juggling the terms protein, amino acid, and enzyme incorrectly. What he's failing to acknowledge is that enzymes are proteins as well, often fairly complex ones. Its kind of ridiculous when you consider most enzymes have molar masses of 20,000 g/mol or more. That's huge. So they are taking just as long to break down as the "proteins" he's referring to. Its all the same thing. Yes, taking them down to their smallest components, they are amino acids polymers.

I would also guess that the amino acid content of his diet is higher than he even realizes. Frankly, it is impossible to be too deficient in protein and be healthy. Look at a condition like kwashiorkor syndrome (a protein deficiency). It is debilitating and usually leads to premature death. So claiming he is that deficient in protein and also being 15 lbs. overweight and being able to perform at a high level is absolute bullshit and someone should call him on it, because I hate when people use their authority to mislead others. His claims are simply impossible. He is getting protein, and he's also showing just how little he knows about what he is talking about.

Another thing he claims is that food scientists can't study the nutritional content of foods without looking at them cooked. Well, they can. And fruits are actually quite low in terms of nutrient density, even after accounting for fiber and H2O. (What's funny is apples are one of the lowest nutrient density foods, and he uses it as his example!). There is plenty of data on nutritional content of foods cooked and raw.

Check out the following two videos. The first is more relevant to this chat, and the latter is more relevant to the first few of our posts.



[googlevideo]http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=organic%20chemist%20perspective%20on%20paleo&source=video&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEEQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvimeo.com%2F27570335&ei=LyqQUbCvI474qAHH8oDoCQ&usg=AFQjCNEV82k4dW8eNhf8IVXNmnF0rS7RsQ&bvm=bv.46340616,d.aWM[/googlevideo]

The cancer thing has been debunked, but I'd have to take some time to find the data. Don't have it right off-hand. The fact is plants probably do offer a strong anti-cancer benefit because plants have some of the strongest anti-angiogenic factors. No doubt we should be including these in our diet. But I don't think there is any good evidence to show better cancer prevention on an all-plant diet versus a diet that includes some plants.